tv [untitled] June 17, 2014 6:30am-7:01am PDT
criteria that the audit crazed to promote the acquisition of the reservoir for 990-0000 to the san francisco puc not because it's a high needs area the highest priority but because the residents pledged $9.02 of us voted against it. pay to play linked or licks are being incriminated into the acquisition fund into the rose and this is wrong and must be rewritten and map 7 obscures this area by labeling that the high percentage of youth and low income householders our second issue in the comment highlighted number 5 i urge you not to pass that on to the phone bill until
this is resolved >> thank you. next speaker. . we can alternative between slides >> hello supervisor kim and supervisor wiener and supervisor cowen i'm robin please boo don't approve the current draft of the rose this recreation and open space element is too important and effects too many people to be rushed through the approval process as it has been in spring instead we should make sure it's right and more diverse activities should be included in the policy. among the major concerns in the name of bio diversity a word that means almost anything this proposes to remove notary republic and a half plant to cut down trees since san francisco's
trees are noting non-native s only if a couple of plant are endangered and most of the bay area native don't flourish in san francisco's wet climate. you'll find the areas heavily man custody with volunteer and gardener hours or their flammable and overrun with bureaus and leaves that can kill that's subject to the natural areas program the goal of the proposed policy is the transformation of san francisco's open space to mimic the value the dry scrub of the san bruno mounts who's vision is this. i'm running out of them so invested interests most san franciscans are shocked at the
overman occurring of their trees and destruction of them you may not want our name associated with the results. thank you very much >> thank you, ms. johnson. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm carolyn johnson. i'd like to talk about the word bio diversity. as the previous speaker said it means different things to different people. my idea of bio diversity is lots of species of animals and plant we have far more in san francisco then the days pictured. i don't know if you know with the christmas pound are something that the audubon society has been doing here in san francisco they started in 1915 they counted the species of
birds every christmastime and it's a good way to keep with bio diversity we have far, far more species of birds than in 1915. and while we've lost maybe a hvenl of species we've gained dozens and dozens and dozens of bird species so when people are talking about the authors of second 4.2 is a different five of kind of bio diversity we have to increase areas that have natural we have to somehow make a it better for bio diversity i don't think it's true their idea of bio diversity is to restore it to the way it used to be maybe when there were slithering different species but far fewer the older ones this is a form of
north america stage which has nothing to do with science i don't think anybody can argue 80 is global warming that's not something people doesn't know what it is and we know that cutting down trees increases is so we need to stop that >> thank you, ms. johnson. >> next speaker >> hello, i'm chris with the friends of recreation and thank you very much supervisors for having me do as much as i can to convince you not to accept the road the first is the recreation element the name of the department is the san francisco rec and park department yet in the seven years in which the
work was can you think on rooirsz the rose recreation constituents were not included and the queries didn't ask about the recreation of the open space the spur put together a committee that didn't represent recreation so only until the last 2 years of the 7 we were included i'm grateful that the task force i work with was willing to balance recreation go with the open space by diversity issues of dogs, etc. so much work is included in the rose it didn't include the word recreation when we were talking about recreation and open space. one of the things missing the map they've included for the first time in this version those are the recreation spaces in san francisco tennis courts, golf
course and basketball courts, etc. so this is the map. let me ask you this. why we it out how howl we're doing with parks how about recreation can you answer that question because there is no standard in the rose for recreation space up in the former rose they refer to the standards recreation park association which day with our increasing population we should are 40 swimming pools we have 9. 4 hundred tennis court barrel a hundred now so the more you add people more demands on recreation the less the supply and the less budget don't accept the rose without those standards. thank you >> thank you mr. kelly.
>> hello good afternoon, supervisors i'm kelly the presidential with the bay area for the trust for public land that's a national organization to make sure that everyone has a park and garden and playground trails within 10 minutes of their homes it is across the ccii country we know first hand what it means to set up the communities. by poorn with the rec and park department we've helped to renovate and create parks most recently we've completed balboa park and the hay playground. we have the competitive scores where the cities are meeting parks. with san francisco in the top
third eave focused on the respect respect spaces. by developing and approving the rose plan san francisco will maintain and have opportunity for organizations like the trust for public and private partnership and bring important parks into the community the rose we see a valuable tool we want to commend the plan on two specific points first policy 102 for the recreation facilities in the high needs area this approach aligns with the system and we've voted for the hunters point area by implementing the rose we can continue to partner with rec and park. the second is the objective engaged community in stewardship
of the rec and park department program we're glad to see this >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor wiener you you've voiced a number of my concerns regarding policy 4.2 and this is not a guide it's a new management procedure and there's no balanced evidenced in this rose which x tolls and celebrates the program from past experience we know that this means heavy use of toxic pesticides the destruction of trees and any and all plants on the hit lacing list and that means missing the 18 century
deadline (laughter) >> if i can say something about trees our tree coverage in san francisco is 12 percentage other eras the trees provide oxygen and they provide wind breaks and improve our quality of life, they make our city healthier. san francisco perry purports to be progressive please don't turn barney back the clock in our open space and don't deludicrously our hilltops and our thriving eco system does not allow the seizures of our life without paroleable open spaces please reject the rose 23 section 4.2 is not removed
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm casey an environmental educator working in the tenderloin and in the excelsior. i'm here to talk about the against support of the rose as it stands so long as section 4.2 is involved in this or is included in this plan or this series of guidelines we're at risk of losing a grateful of our effort and hillside. the map sounds good on paper but that's only until you look at what bio diversity means in this context and also until it's consequences of its implementation are examined.
what we've already seen the destruction of the effort in your honor, areas the worldwide use of herbicides this is leading to and it will lead to erosion and more innovation of or suck suction of innovation weeds and grass comes next and the types of things that grow in a clear-cut area is not what people want this will encourage development the wide areas people wouldn't federal court them and advocate for them it will make it easier to seize those areas and have them
developed for needed housing and also the cost of it i'm against it please don't vote for it >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi i'm speaking as an individual today. i'd like to start with my plea to please vote against this. very often we see people that build a bridge or develop a park we still talk about them but it's good for people to stop something that would be a problem. my concern is policy 4.2 will bake conflict into the rose and that will mean for the next 20 years or until it survivors
again there will be an area of conflict which will lead to a great expenditure of money, a waste angle of time and effort and hearings like this one you get a room of people that says please don't do it so, please vote against it. there's two other points one phil beginnings ginsburg attacked talked about a word i didn't find a word relevant so i request someone either mr. ginsburg define what they mean by ecological integrity and the second is what peter mentioned they were not trying to build
one area out of nothing there's one this is less successful the dunes this was an old this it was knocked down and the area was acquired they 3wr5ug9 in said. >>and planted things the next time i looked i couldn't find on ant. >> thank you very much. next speaker. actually let me call the next batch of card if you will start to line up (calling names) come on up. those are all the cards i have
by the way, >> i'm melinda and supervisor wiener you are my supervisor and i came up up to ask for voting no for this 4.2 is in it. it's as has been said before a land grab for the n ap i'm not happy with the way they've done the other parts they've been given so to have them as a model for our management ever our natural areas is not a good model i don't believe. i think there's a lot of ways we can manage land and not necessarily their way. in terms of getting it back to
what is natural with global change i think the plants would be different now as is our coastline anyway that's all i want to say i encourage you to vote no >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> thank you very much supervisors for having this hearing. i'm norma miller no time familiar with legal language so i have not really be able to understand all of this that's mainly my point is that over the years i've seen how committees are formed and grow and pass and other people have been coming in
and take over the work and go by the guidelines but i find the guidelines are so slippery and we've already you've already heard from the last few speakers how the guidelines have been misinterpreted to create a negative effect on our public lands and i just would like you to be very careful about the language it's slippery and who knows how it is going to be interpreted it's already been enough damage done by the natural areas program so i'm asking you not to pass this with this 4.2. thank you very much >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> supervisors good afternoon.
i'm paul i live in san francisco district 5. the neighbors and users of tank hill have been told by the rec and park department they'll have 0 no money to repair a dangerous trail in the park where series injuries have occurred we've had to file for a grant at about application has been submitted now our submittal maybe more favorable viewed if we make financial contributions to show our good faith so people in the neighborhoods are being asked to donate a hundred or more and the derating areas in balboa park. it now we have a city department
is that failing to maintain safe and assessable parks now we have to expandhe management practices to all the parklands in san francisco. nap is a part of rec and park department that ignores evolution and the growing scientific data on the generic bio diversity to look for plants that survive and now environments being created by global changes we ignore that for example, what is s it going to cost san francisco for rising oceans. i ask you please vote no on rose until policy 4.2 is removed if rec and park department can't do appropriate maintenance to the
parks. like the nature conservey have selecting non-native mr. sanchez plants because those plants will survive and the native species won't he hope you will give seriousness this is a heavy burden on people that point real diversity in the city >> thank you very much. mr. grady >> thank you supervisors i'm manifesting the ceo of the parks alliance it is spronl strongly supporting the adaptation of the rose there's 3 key points about the rose the first is a reasonable well-balanced plan that accommodates the growth for the city of san francisco and
second to emphasize the value that our open spaces provide to san franciscans and thirdly, the comment about the open space. it's about a very long journey we're pleased with the journey and the final outcome of the rose it's not perfect but certainly is the result of a very heavily democratic process and all in all it's a good strong guiding document. we're certainly in the growth period i've lost count of construction crapes maybe thirty we're looking at 20 thousand more omit this document are will be critical as we plan on the growth. finally, i also want to comment on the economic value of the parks.
i'm sure you're aware of the san francisco park alliances has statute the open space in san francisco that study is nearing completion not still allowed to fill the bamz but a positive economic impact this plan will help to support the concept that parks are not amenity but essential to our economic. final policy 4.2 h that was developed with board community support throughout the seven years that we revised the rose we strongly recommend this adaptation >> thank you, mr. scott. >> frankly. the rose should not be approved with policy 4.2 it promotes the natural areas for the federal
>> have deeply elapsed ecology and what makes effort watersheds work and what makes bio diversity work and keep a sustainable system going. i can tell you what original started out under the investments pushing for bio diversity that was supposed to protect gene pools so it could go back for plant species has moderator both into what can, described as a crazy neurosis in which we seek out vast tracks of vegetation to try to restore them to some pristine condition not 20 thousand years ago
because when the indigenous people came they changed the landscape this stuff has become ridiculous and it also at that time when were faking building a climate crisis we mutt not cut down eucalyptus that releases vast amounts of co2 we need to have this decision for a hundred years from now then maybe we can start deciding when we can cut down a bunch of trees please remove 4.2 >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning peripheries naipz a linda schaffer i've had the honor of servicing on the
rec and park department open space advisory committee since 2008. i actually represent two constituents i audio tape one of 4 seats on the committee that is looked for representatives of environmental organizations so i have a big job but today, i'm speaking only for myself i've been listening to this from the overflow room i have to admit i've had a sewer restrictive experience i how the i was going to enter a conversation about a sin ram this is about the open space document so i'll address miff to that having seen all the previous versions and service on prozac i feel very confident in stating this is a fair and
balanced document that has take into account all of the input guided by many, many people all of whom hold different opinions about the subjects i don't how they've managed to get all the opinions represented i would specifically like to mention i'm delighted by bio he diversity and sustainability have their own objective in this document and